JIK-26; No.

of Pages 7
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Journal of Innovation & Knowledge x x x (2 0 1 6) xxx–xxx

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE
provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector

Journal of Innovation
& Knowledge
www.elsevier.es/jik

Conceptual paper

Kurt Lewin’s process model for organizational

change: The role of leadership and employee
involvement: A critical review

Syed Talib Hussain ∗ , Shen Lei, Tayyaba Akram, Muhammad Jamal Haider,
Syed Hadi Hussain, Muhammad Ali
Glorious Sun School of Business and Management, Donghua University, Shanghai, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Change is crucial for organizations in continuous growing and high competition in busi-
Received 22 June 2016 ness environment. Different theories of change describe the effectiveness of modification
Accepted 14 July 2016 of strategies, processes and structures for organizations. The action research model, the
Available online xxx positive model and the Lewin’s change model submit the views of the phases for change in
organization. This study views the Lewin’s model as three steps process (unfreezing, move-
Keywords: ment and refreezing) for change in organization. Although this model sets a general steps to
Organizational change be followed, more information is considered to guide these steps in specific situations. This
Unfreezing article is critically reviewed for change theories in different phases of organizational change.
Change process In this critical review the change management has constructive framework for managing the
Refreezing organizational change through different phases of the process. This review gives theoretical
Employee involvement in change and practical implications and somehow the immunity to change has been discussed.
Knowledge sharing © 2016 Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. This is an
Leadership style open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
Implementation of change by-nc-nd/4.0/).

El modelo de proceso de cambio organizacional de Kurt Lewin: El papel

del liderazgo y la participación de los empleados: Una versión crítica

r e s u m e n

Palabras clave: El cambio es crucial para las organizaciones en continuo crecimiento y la competitividad
Cambio organizacional en el entorno empresarial. Diversas teorías del cambio describen la efectividad que tiene
Estilo de liderazgo la modificación de las estrategias, los procesos y las estructuras de las organizaciones. El
Descongelación modelo de investigación, el modelo positivo y el modelo de cambio de Lewin presentan las
Proceso de cambio opiniones de las fases de cambio en la organización. Este estudio, muestra el modelo de
Lewin como un proceso dividido en tres (descongelación, movimiento y recongelación) para

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: talib 14@yahoo.com (S.T. Hussain).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.07.002
2444-569X/© 2016 Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article in press as: Hussain, S. T., et al. Kurt Lewin’s process model for organizational change: The role of leadership and employee
involvement: A critical review. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.07.002
JIK-26; No. of Pages 7
ARTICLE IN PRESS
2 j o u r n a l o f i n n o v a t i o n & k n o w l e d g e x x x (2 0 1 6) xxx–xxx

Recongelación el cambio en la organización. Aunque este modelo establece unos pasos generales a seguir,
Implicación del empleado en el se puede considerar más información para seguir estos pasos en situaciones determinadas.
cambio Este artículo revisa de una manera crítica las teorías de cambio en diferentes fases del
Conocimiento compartido cambio organizacional. En esta revisión crítica, la gestión del cambio presenta un marco
Implementación del cambio constructivo para gestionar el cambio organizacional a través de diferentes fases del proceso.
Esta revisión proporciona además, las implicaciones teóricas y prácticas y de igual manera,
la inmunidad al cambio ha sido discutida.
© 2016 Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. Este es
un artı́culo Open Access bajo la licencia CC BY-NC-ND (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

change is uncertain and may concern the people’s worth, cop-

Introduction and research questions
The purpose of the study is to craft the relation between pro-
cess model and change, this relation describes the ways of
implementing change process by leader’s knowledge sharing,
and this sharing identifies the stages of change process, and
these stages delineate the functional significance between
organizational change and change implementation. The orga-
nizational life has been made inevitable feature by global,
technological and economic pace, and many models of organi-
zational change have acknowledged the influence of implicit
dimensions at one stage or more stages of organizational
change process (Burke, 2008; Wilkins & Dyer, 1988), and these
models imitate different granular levels affecting the process
of organizational change, and each level of them identifies
distinctive change implementation stages (By, 2005). A model
of organizational change in Kurt Lewin’s three steps change
process context was introduced in this study; which reflects
momentous stages in change implementation process. Kurt
Lewin’s model is the early fundamental planned change mod-
els explaining the striving forces to maintain the status quo
and pushing for change (Lewin, 1947). To change the “quasi-
stationary equilibrium” stage, one may increase the striving
forces for change, or decrease the forces maintaining the sta-
tus quo, or the combination of both forces for proactive and
reactive organizational change through knowledge sharing of
individual willingness with the help of stimulating change
leadership style.
The Lewin’s model was used from an ethnographic study
assumed for the investigation of the Lewin’s model for change
development, mediates implementation and leadership ini-
tiatives for change in complex organizations. The focus of this
research on (i) how Lewin’s change model granulates change,
(ii) how knowledge sharing affects the change implementation
process, (iii) how employees involve in change and willingness
to change, and (iv) how leadership style affects the organiza-
tional change process in organization.
Model of organizational change
Process model
The organizational change explains the movement of an orga-
nization from the known (current state) state to the unknown
(Desired future state) state. This is because the future of this
ing abilities, and competency, so the people of the organization
do not support change unless they are convinced against the
status quo (Cummings & Worley, 2003). The organization may
have invested heavily for status quo; subsequently resisting
change will take place to avoid uncertain future of organi-
zation. Consequently, the necessary actions are to be taken
to motivate employees. For this purpose, the study explores
the loop of organizational change process through a series
of events, which focuses on fundamental steps taken for
implementation of change. The model has been categorized
into loops of leadership, management and organization. This
process is being initiated through Lewin’s (1947) three steps
change model denoting the step by step phases of unfreezing,
changing and refreezing, so employees are being involved and
instructed by leaders regarding the issues related to change
process (Porras & Robertson, 1992). This subsequence pro-
cess of change elaborates the varying outline sequence upon
the essential stages of change (Bate, Khan, & Pye, 2000). The
reprisal in the process Burke (2008) and Whelan-Berry, Gordon,
and Hinings (2003) underlined the importance of leadership
before launching each phase at each stage of change. The
leader’s ethicality may be one of the most important sources
for change from employees as Durand and Calori (2006) stated
the ethics of leadership in change process. Yet, this study does
not examine explicitly the role of leadership ethics or impor-
tance in spontaneous undergoing change process (Armenakis
& Harris, 2009).
In this study the organizational change will be referred
as planned change. In context of process model of change,
the culture has been recognized by theorists as moderator for
organizational change. As Burke (2008) identified the Burke-
Litwin model from different process theorists for the culture
of organizational change.
Organizational change and Lewin’s model “unfreezing”
Change management defined by Moran and Brightman (2001)
as ‘the process of continually renewing an organization’s
direction, structure, and capabilities to serve the ever chang-
ing needs of external and internal customers’. Changing does
not depend on size and age but occurs thoroughly in all busi-
nesses. The world changes very fast, so the organizations must
have to be changed quickly for the development and surviv-
ing of the organization (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2008). The
Models and theories have been proposed for driving changes

Please cite this article in press as: Hussain, S. T., et al. Kurt Lewin’s process model for organizational change: The role of leadership and employee
involvement: A critical review. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.07.002
JIK-26; No. of Pages 7
ARTICLE IN PRESS
j o u r n a l o f i n n o v a t i o n & k n o w l e d g e x x x (2 0 1 6) xxx–xxx
in organization for managers and leaders to monitor, evalu-
ate and plan changes using structure for quick response to
the internal or external environment and foresee the pattern
of change by individuals, products, technology and market
(Van Ossten, 2006). As stated by Glieck (1987) that organiza-
tional change is a kind of chaos, so number of variables are
changing, the environment changing, frequent change and
resistant to change create confluence of change process at
the same time, that not only stimulates difficulties in predic-
tion but also make control impossible. However, the repeatedly
research literature, consistently link different classes of events
in organizations for change. A new model has to be built to
describe the causes of organizational change, exploring how
does organization functions (i.e., a leads b), and causation of
model change deliberately. The internal and external envi-
ronment persuades organizations for change. Pierce, Gardner,
and Dunham (2002) stated two kind of change in organiza-
tion, reactive and proactive change. The reactive change takes
place when internal or external forces pressurize the organi-
zation for change while proactive change takes place when
the organization itself concludes about change to be desirable
and Peters and Waterman (1982) developed cultural excel-
lence model for change; Pettigrew (1973) developed processual
approach as holistic view for organization and environment,
which emphasize that change is heavily influence by power,
culture and politics. Many theories have been propose for
change process but here in this study the Lewin’s three steps
model for change have to be used for change process. As the
organization is in stage of change, the Kurt Lewin’s theory has
been applied for change process. According to the study of
Lewin, that successful organizational change may be planned
and this requires the system to be unfreezed. As explained
in literature review, there are different reasons for change of
organization and this will divert from its current position or
status quo to a new direction. This stage will increase the
group behaviors for change or to increase the leader’s pressure
for change at higher level, and Lewin suggests that the forces
involving for status quo will create minimum resistance and
tension than the forces applying for change and this strategy
will be more effective strategy for change.
Employee involvement in change and Lewin’s model
“change process”
Employee involvement (EI) has been defined by Glew, Leary-
Kelly, Griffin, and Van Fleet (1995) as “Employee involvement
seeks to increase members’ input into decisions that affect
organization performance and employee well being”. This
can be explained in four (power, information, knowledge and
skill, and rewards) elements which promote the worker or
employee involvement. For overcoming the resistance in orga-
nizational change, the employee involvement is the most
oldest and effective strategy in formulating the planning and
implementing change. The participation will lead high quality
change and prevail over the resistance in implementing stage
(Vroom & Yetton, 1973). By doing this a variety of informa-
tion and ideas may be generated, which may contribute the
innovations effective and suitable in the situation, raise likeli-
hood, create member commitment in implementing change,
and employee motivating and leading change effort in work
Please cite this article in press as: Hussain, S. T., et al. Kurt Lewin’s process model for organizational change: The role of leadership and employee
involvement: A critical review. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.07.002
3
(Cummings & Molloy, 1977). After getting out of the status
quo, the leaders are required to support employee’s involve-
ment for accelerating the change in organization. The study
of Pierce et al. (2002) states that; to stimulate process, the
employees must have to be addressed about change. The lead-
ers should educate, communicate, participate, involve, task
support, provide emotional support and incentives, manipu-
late, co-optate and coerce the employees about change.
The study of Morgan and Zeffane (2003) states that dur-
ing change process the leader’s transparency, reaffirms and
enhance the trust of employee’s involvement in organiza-
tional change process regarding the discussion and meetings
whenever discussed in organization, this allows employees for
their opinions and achieve better sense of control (Morgan &
Zeffane, 2003). The leaders having encouraging behavior will
provide the support or suggestions in the process of change
will reap advantages of task commitment and effectiveness
(Higgins, Judge, & Ferris, 2003). The active role of employees in
organizational change tends employees toward positive feel-
ings (Furst & Cable, 2008). This will enhance the employee
acceptance for change process (Oreg, 2006) and also select
changes during change process for encouraging the organiza-
tional support (Armenakis & Harris, 2009). This change process
of Lewin second step will shift the behavior or attitude of
department, organization, or individual to the next new level.
The employee’s involvement will be more effective if
employees are empowered in authority and responsibility
(Mathieu, Gilson, & Rubby, 2006). Here in every step of Lewin,
the role of leadership involves as change agent for behav-
ioral integration in tasks and social dimensions. The study
of Srivastava, Bartol, and Locke (2006) states that, knowledge
sharing means in team is sharing information, task relevant
ideas and suggestions between different levels of manage-
ment.
Knowledge sharing and Lewin’s model “change process”
The employees make sharing of knowledge about task
assignments, customer service, performance outcomes and
decisions making, information flow from multilevel, mak-
ing business plans, competitive conditions, new technology
equipments, work methods, ideas for organizational improve-
ment, share skill and expertise, share development programs,
contribute in solving problems and business operation
(Cummings & Worley, 2003). The study of Wenger, McDermott,
and Snyder (2002) states, that knowledge sharing is crucial
among individuals of an organization. Knowledge sharing
in organizational resources is critical for competition, sus-
tainability and dynamic economy (Hakanson, 1993; Foss
& Pedersen, 2002). So the organizations do not rely on
training, staffing and managing system only but also the
knowledgeable individuals share beliefs, experiences, skills,
competencies and abilities (Ambrosini & Bowman, 2001;
Brown & Duguid, 1991). One thing should be noted that how to
transfer the knowledge and expertise from the knowledgeable
experts to novices who are in need to know (Hind, Patterson, &
Pfeffer, 2001). Bordia, Irmer, and Abusah (2006) concluded that
knowledge sharing at individual level was studied in organi-
zation behavior, psychology (Lin, 2007), information systems
(Wasko & Faraj, 2005) and strategic management (Reagans
JIK-26; No. of Pages 7
ARTICLE IN PRESS
4 j o u r n a l o f i n n o v a t i o n & k n o w l e d g e x x x (2 0 1 6) xxx–xxx

Unfreezing Change Process

Employee Involvement in
Organizational change Knowledge sharing
change

Change process

Refreezing Change process

Implementation of change Leadership

Organizational change process showing different stages

Fig. 1 – Model of organizational change shows the Kurt Lewin’s three steps model: Note: The arrows show different stages of
Kurt Lewin’s three steps model and not the relationship between variables.

& McEvily, 2003). Knowledge sharing is done in individual,
group and organizational level of the organization, starting
at individual level; simultaneously expand to group level and
ends at the organizational level (Bock & Kim, 2002) and this
is explained by Uriarte (2008) as the framework of knowledge
sharing consisting of three levels as enablers, levers and foun-
dation.
In the change process when employees contribute, the
knowledge sharing stage identifies the kind of knowledge
that generates the value of organization after that gen-
erating the mechanism for that knowledge. The required
knowledge is identified for organizational need which is
getting from two sources of external as renting or consul-
tancy from other companies or share knowledge by internal
source in informal networks among employees who have
expertise (Wenger, 1999). Sharing knowledge is actually the
organizational learning process, which concludes, what the
members or employees know about the organizational prod-
ucts, processes, customers, and competitive environments of
organization. This knowledge may be the explicit knowledge
which can be easily transferred in documents, databases and
manuals and the tacit knowledge is the member’s internal
skills, intuitions and memories (Polanyi, 1995). In the change
process of Lewin’s three step model, the knowledge is cod-
ified and personalized. In codification phase the knowledge
is stored which would be used by appropriate members but
in personalization phase the knowledge is being focused that
how to transfer it from person to person. The codification of
knowledge is called explicit knowledge which can be easily
transferred and personalization is called the tacit knowl-
edge which is not easily transferable. The given below model
explains the whole cycle or process of organizational change
by applying the Kurt Lewin’s three steps model (Fig. 1).
Leadership and Lewin’s model “change process”
Leadership has been defined by Northouse (2004) as “a process
by which an individual influences a group of individuals to
achieve common goals”. The study of Cummings and Worley
(2003) has presented five activities of key leadership in change
process. The activities are of motivating change, creating
a vision, developing political support, managing the transi-
tion and sustaining momentum. The motivating change and
creating a vision show to the unfreezing or current state
of organization is being considered for change, developing
political support and managing the transition show the mov-
ing stage of change and sustaining momentum shows the
implementation and refreezing state of the change. In change
process two factors play important role, the employee’s resis-
tance (Stanley, Meyer, & Topolnytsky, 2005) and the openness
to change (Wanberg & Banas, 2000). Resistance to change prob-
ably effects the change process which will lead to the negative
outcomes (Bordia, Hunt, Paulsen, Tourish, & DiFonzo, 2004)
while the openness of change of employees have to be focused
during change process. The leadership in change context can
be defined as “the process of diagnosing where the work group
is now, and where it needs to be in the future, and formulating
a strategy for getting there. Leadership also involves imple-
menting change through developing a base of influence with
followers, motivating them to commit to and work hard in
pursuit of change goals, and working with them to overcome
obstacle to change” (Laura & Stephen, 2002).
Leadership type is vital in change process of organiza-
tional change. Transactional leaders are involved in rewards
and punishments with workers to encourage the performance
of organization (Bass, 1985) and transformational leaders
are charismatic, inspirational, intellectual and individualized
consideration (Bass, 1985). This kind of leadership identi-
fies the stakeholders for change process. The stakeholders
(departmental managers, staff groups, and top level execu-
tives) can support change and make broad based support to
maximize the risk of success and minimize the risk of resis-
tance in change process by asking “who stands to gain or to
lose from the change?” and this will build a relationship for
creating the useful influence (Cummings & Worley, 2003). The
stakeholders use three methods for motivation in change pro-
cess, playing it straight, going around the formal system and
using social networks (Greiner & Schein, 1988). The “playing it

Please cite this article in press as: Hussain, S. T., et al. Kurt Lewin’s process model for organizational change: The role of leadership and employee
involvement: A critical review. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.07.002
JIK-26; No. of Pages 7
ARTICLE IN PRESS
j o u r n a l o f i n n o v a t i o n & k n o w l e d g e x x x (2 0 1 6) xxx–xxx
straight” explains the need of changes by giving information
and how these changes can make benefit the particular stake-
holders. The second part “social network” forms alliances and
coalitions with key decision makers, powerful individuals,
groups, and with informal and formal contacts for gaining
information. The third part “going around the formal system”
is probably least used method involving circumventing orga-
nizational procedures and structures.
Implementation phase and “refreezing” of Lewin’s model
The Kurt Lewin’s model (unfreezing, changing and refreezing)
is widely accepted in psychology for implementing change.
The implementation of change involves the current state of
organization have to be changed into a desired state, but this
will not occur quickly but simultaneously. Beckhard and Harris
(1987) identified three activities for implementing the change;
activity planning, commitment planning and change manage-
ment structures. The activity planning makes a road map or
path for organizational change, events and specific activities
must be occurred for successful change. The specific activi-
ties involve the integrated change tasks, temporal orient and
explicitly tie the tasks according to the organization’s change
priorities and goals. The commitment planning identifies the
persons and groups whose commitment is required or needed
for organizational change for the purpose to formulate and
gain their support. The people or groups are, political support,
the stakeholder’s plans and their commitment for change in
process of change. The change management structure iden-
tifies the ambiguous, direction, and structure for managing
change process. Which includes resources to promote change,
the current leadership structure, change consultants, inter-
personal and political skills to initiate the change process
(Beckhard & Harris, 1987). The study of Kanter (1983) describes
the three stages as information (expertise, technical knowl-
edge, and political support); resources (personnel, materials
and funds), and support (legal issues, backing of support, and
endorsement).
Conclusion
Many theories have been given by different researchers, like
action research model (French, 1969); the positive model by
Cameron, Dutton, and Quinn (2003) and Lewin’s change model
(Lewin, 1947). The Lewin’s change model was used in this
study for organizational change process. As Burnes (2004)
identified the organizational change as a feature of organi-
zational life for strategic and operational level, so there is no
doubt about the importance of change in organization, and
it to be executed because, organization needs change. The
study of Podsakoff, Mackenzie, and Bommer (1996) explores
the active role of leadership style in organizational outcomes,
employee satisfaction, and performance. In every step of the
study; the leadership plays a role of a change agent in the
Kurt Lewin’s model to unfreeze the organization. The trans-
formational leadership style affects the organizational change
process. In this type of leadership style, the leader coordinate
with employees, share their knowledge, give opportunity in
making decisions in organizational level.
Please cite this article in press as: Hussain, S. T., et al. Kurt Lewin’s process model for organizational change: The role of leadership and employee
involvement: A critical review. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.07.002
5
Theoretical implications
The findings of this study show that leadership style and
employee involvement in change is encouraging step for
change process of organization. However, the effect of Kurt
Lewin’s model is indirect through separate phases in the pro-
cess. The transformational leadership style has been studies
as the most important factor for change process in prior
studies (Gong, Huang, & Farh, 2009). This paper associates
positive impact of leadership style on change process. This
study illustrates the effect of leadership style in terms of
employee involvement in change, motivating employee for
change, share the knowledge at individual and organizational
level to make the loop of the change process. At each phase of
the process model, the leaders and employees are considered
to be one unit, and each phase will be shifted to the next step
of the Kurt model.
Managerial implications
Different organizations use different organizational change
model for stay in competition in the market. Like positive
model, action research model, Lewin’s model, Kanter, Stein,
and Jick (1992), Kotter’s model (1996) and Luecke model (2003)
for organizational change. All of these studies showed that
leadership is the key factor for change process. The study indi-
cates the dominant role of leadership, employee involvement
and sharing knowledge in change process of Lewin’s model.
The study recommends for organization to elevate the aware-
ness of change and phases for organization. As we see the
knowledge sharing is an important catalyst for unfreezing
stage and moving stage for the process. On the same time
employee involvement is the main factor for shifting of orga-
nization from one phase to another, so all these factor are
interrelated for the current change process.
Social implications
This study has significant social implications. The key fac-
tors that can encourage change in organization with swap
of rewards and recognitions bring significant social impli-
cations for enhancing the organizational change process.
This study has examined (1) the dominant role of leader-
ship and employee involvement in change process necessary
for bringing effective change in management, (2) the study
explored a significant connection of knowledge sharing in
change process with employees and leaders in implementing
the change process, (3) the management should focus on the
leadership style in change process, and finally (4) the review
shows a framework of links among leadership to employees
involvement, sharing knowledge and provides an insight to
practitioners that how leader behavior relates to involvement
and sharing knowledge in Lewin’s change model context.
references
Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2008). Changing organizational
culture: Culture change. Work in progress. London, New York:
Routledge.
JIK-26; No. of Pages 7
ARTICLE IN PRESS
6 j o u r n a l o f i n n o v a t i o n & k n o w l e d g e x x x (2 0 1 6) xxx–xxx
Ambrosini, V., & Bowman, C. (2001). Tacit knowledge: Some
suggestions for operationalization. Journal of Management
Studies, 38(6), 811–829.
Armenakis, A. A., & Harris, S. G. (2009). Reflections: Our journey
in organizational change research and practice. Journal of
Change Management, 9(2), 127–142.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectation.
New York: Free Press.
Bate, P., Khan, R., & Pye, A. (2000). Towards a culturally sensitive
approach to organization structuring. Organization Science, 11,
197–211.
Beckhard, R., & Harris, R. (1987). Organizational transitions:
Managing complex change. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley
Publishing Company.
Bock, G. W., & Kim, Y. G. (2002). Breaking the myths of rewards:
An exploratory study of attitudes about knowledge sharing.
Information Resource Management Journal, 15(2), 14–21.
Bordia, P., Hunt, E., Paulsen, N., Tourish, D., & DiFonzo, N. (2004).
Uncertainty during organizational change: Is it all about
control? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,
13, 345–365.
Bordia, P., Irmer, B. E., & Abusah, D. (2006). Differences in sharing
knowledge interpersonally and via databases: The role of
evaluation apprehension and perceived benefits. European
Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(3),
262–280.
Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and
communities of practice: Toward a unified view of working,
learning, and innovation. Organization Science, 2(1), 40–57.
Burke, W. W. (2008). Organization change: Theory and practice.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burnes, B. (2004). Managing change: A strategic approach to
organizational dynamics (4th ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.
By, R. T. (2005). Organizational change management: A critical
review. Journal of Change Management, 5, 369–380.
Cameron, K., Dutton, J., & Quinn, R. (2003). Positive organizational
scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. New York: Berrett
Kohier.
Cummings, T., & Molloy, E. (1977). Improving productivity and the
quality of work life. New York: Praeger.
Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2003). Organization development
and change (8th ed., pp. 1–694). California: Melissa S. Acuna.
Durand, R., & Calori, R. (2006). Sameness, otherness? Enriching
organizational change theories with philosophical
considerations on the same and the other. Academy of
Management Review, 31(1), 93–114.
Foss, N. J., & Pedersen, T. (2002). Transferring knowledge in MNCs:
The role of sources of subsidiary knowledge and
organizational. Journal of International Management, 8, 49–67.
French, W. (1969). Organization development: Objectives,
assumptions, and strategies. California Management Review, 12,
23–34.
Furst, S. A., & Cable, D. M. (2008). Employee resistance to
organizational change: Managerial influence tactics and
leader member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93,
453–463.
Glew, D., Leary-Kelly, A., Griffin, R., & Van Fleet, D. (1995).
Participation in organizations: A preview of the issues and
proposed framework for future analysis. Journal of
Management, 21(3), 395–421.
Glieck, J. (1987). Chaos: Making a new science. New York: Viking.
Gong, Y., Huang, J., & Farh, J. (2009). Employee learning
orientation, transformational leadership, and employee
creativity: The mediating role of employee creative
self-efficacy. Academy of Management Journal, 51, 1–15.
Greiner, & Schein. (1988). Power and organization development.
Hakanson, H. (1993). In P. Beije, J. Groeneppen, & O. Nuys (Eds.),
Networks as a mechanism to develop resources in networking in
Dutch Industries. Leven Apeldorn: Granat.
Please cite this article in press as: Hussain, S. T., et al. Kurt Lewin’s process model for organizational change: The role of leadership and employee
involvement: A critical review. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.07.002
Higgins, C., Judge, T. A., & Ferris, G. R. (2003). Influence tactics and
work outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24, 89–106.
Hind, P. J., Patterson, M., & Pfeffer, J. (2001). Bothered by
abstraction: The effect of expertise on knowledge transfer and
subsequent novice performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
86, 1232–1243.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters. New York: Simon and
Schuster.
Kanter, R. M., Stein, B. A., & Jick, T. D. (1992). The challenge of
organizational change. New York: The Free Press.
Kotter, J. P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Laura, L. P., & Stephen, G. G. (2002). Leadership self efficacy and
managers’ motivation for leading change. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 23(2), 215–235.
Lewin, K. (1947). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper &
Row.
Lewin’s change management model. (1947). Understanding the
three stages of change. Available at: http://www.mindtools.
com/pages/article/newPPM 94.htm. (Accessed on 14 April,
2016)
Lin, C. P. (2007). To share or not to share: Modeling knowledge
sharing using exchange ideology as a moderator. Personnel
Review, 36(3), 457–475.
Luecke, R. (2003). Managing change and transition. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Mathieu, J. E., Gilson, L. L., & Rubby, T. M. (2006). Empowerment
and team effectiveness: An empirical test of an integrated
model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 97–108.
Moran, J. W., & Brightman, B. K. (2001). Leading organizational
change. Career Development International, 6(2), 111–118.
Morgan, D. E., & Zeffane, R. (2003). Employee involvement,
organizational change and trust in management. International
Journal of Human Resource Management, 14(1), 55–75.
Northouse, P. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Oreg, S. (2006). Personality context and resistance to
organizational change. European Journal of Work and
Organizational Psychology, 15, 73–103.
Peters, T., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence: Lessons
from America’s best run companies. London: Harper & Row.
Pettigrew, A. M. (1973). The politics of organizational decision making.
London: Tavistook.
Pierce, J. L., Gardner, D. G., & Dunham, R. B. (2002). Management
organizational change and development. In Management and
organizational behavior: An integrated perspective. pp. 627–657.
Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing (Chapter
18).
Podsakoff, G. R., Mackenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996).
Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes
for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction,
commitment, trust, sand organizational citizenship
behaviors. Journal of Management, 22,
259–298.
Polanyi, M. (1995). The tacit dimension (New York: Doubleday,
1966). In I. Nonaka, & H. Takeuchi (Eds.), The knowledge
creating company: How Japanese foster creativity and innovation
for competitive advantage. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Porras, J. I., & Robertson, P. J. (1992). Organizational development
theory, practice, and research (2nd ed., pp. 719–822). Handbook of
Industrial and organizational Psychology (Vol. 3) Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and
knowledge transfer: The effects of cohesion and range.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 240–267.
Srivastava, A., Bartol, K. M., & Locke, E. A. (2006). Empowering
leadership in management teams: Effects on knowledge
JIK-26; No. of Pages 7
ARTICLE IN PRESS
j o u r n a l o f i n n o v a t i o n & k n o w l e d g e x x x (2 0 1 6) xxx–xxx 7

sharing, efficacy, and performance. Academy of Management
Journal, 49, 1239–1251.
Stanley, D. J., Meyer, J. P., & Topolnytsky, L. (2005). Employee
cynicism and resistance to organizational change. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 19, 429–459.
Uriarte, f. A. J. (2008). Introduction to knowledge management.
Jakarta, Indonesia: ASEAN, Foundation.
Van Ossten, E. B. (2006). International change theory at the
organizational level: A case study. Journal of Management
Development, 25, 707–717.
Vroom, V., & Yetton, P. (1973). Leadership and decision making.
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Wanberg, R. R., & Banas, J. T. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of
openness to change in a reorganizing workplace. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 85, 132–142.
Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining
social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic
networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35–57.
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning
and identity. In J. Brown, & P. Duguid (Eds.), Towards a unified
view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization Science
(Vol. 2) (pp. 40–57). Cambridge, Eng., Cambridge University
Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating
communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Whelan-Berry, K. S., Gordon, J. R., & Hinings, C. R. (2003).
Strengthening organizational change processes:
Recommendations and implications from a multi-level
analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39,
186–207.
Wilkins, A. L., & Dyer, W. G., Jr. (1988). Toward culturally sensitive
theories of culture change. Academy of Management Review, 13,
522–533.

Please cite this article in press as: Hussain, S. T., et al. Kurt Lewin’s process model for organizational change: The role of leadership and employee
involvement: A critical review. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2016.07.002